Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 15

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some argue that anarchy—the absence of government—can work. However, any philosophy based in chaos—anarchy—should be ignored.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts by defining anarchy as the absence of government, but, by the end of the argument, it has defined it as countenancing chaos. That's a leap—as the one writer notes, anarchy may not be chaotic, but rather laissez-faire capitalism in its purest form. Since the author switches from one definition of anarchy to another in the argument, the correct answer should highlight this shift.

Answer Explanation:
Anarchy shifts from "the absence of government" to "countenanc[ing] chaos." Since the whole argument is a debate over anarchy, that term is key, and the author explicitly changes up the definition here.

Key Takeaway:
Usually when an argument is jumping between two definitions of the same word, it's subtle about it and just switches gears without noting it. However, when an argument on the LSAT actually defines the terms that it's using, you should see if it uses it again in a different sense—or, as here, blatantly defines it in different terms.

Incorrect. While one writer argues that anarchy is laissez-faire capitalism taken to its logical extreme, Bowers never states that she agrees with that. As such, it's not required that she demonstrate that it should be rejected, and so it's not a flaw for her to fail to do so.

Incorrect. Bowers does note, seemingly dismissively, that "[a] few" people believe something, but she doesn't use that as a reason to dismiss their view. Rather, she uses a rule about dismissing philosophies that countenance chaos to invalidate their view. This answer—a form of ad hominem attack that focuses on the lack of support for an argument instead of the argument itself—isn't present here.

Incorrect. Bowers states that acceptable social philosophies must promote peace. However, that's a statement about philosophies, not societies, and it's a necessary condition for a social philosophy to be acceptable, not a sufficient condition for a society to flourish, so this answer doesn't reflect the argument.

Incorrect. Bowers doesn't reject the view merely because it's extreme—she rejects it because she believes that it countenances chaos, and acceptable philosophies instead promote peace and order.